QUICK READ! PLEASE RESPOND!

I'm a Hispanic male with a 3.5 GPA from Texas A&M University. The highest LSAT I scored was a 153. I have an impressive resume, great letters of recommendation and a strong personal statement/addendum's etc.

I've read online that being a URM can give minority applicants a substantial advantage (which would obviously be great)

Yes, being an URM such as yourself will help. Although the exact numbers vary, 5 points on the LSAT may be a reasonable assumption, but it is by no means a guarantee. I would plug in your stats to something like lawschoolnunbers and then compare that to self-identified URM applicants and non-URM to get an idea of where you might get in.

barprephero

That's true, but it is possible to quantify the effect of URM status vis a vis LSAT scores. The tough part is that it varies based on whether we're talking a 140, 150, or 160 as your base.

It always kind of bugs me how people who go "race is a social construct and we are all just humans and need to stop treating eacother different by race" still call people racist if they ask for that same thing to be applied to college admissions.

Don't get me wrong, if you can use a tool, use it. It just is interesting to me since White Males are NOT the majority of law students anymore and a VAST minority in some other fields such as veterinarian medicine.

That's true, but it is possible to quantify the effect of URM status vis a vis LSAT scores. The tough part is that it varies based on whether we're talking a 140, 150, or 160 as your base.

It always kind of bugs me how people who go "race is a social construct and we are all just humans and need to stop treating eacother different by race" still call people racist if they ask for that same thing to be applied to college admissions.

Don't get me wrong, if you can use a tool, use it. It just is interesting to me since White Males are NOT the majority of law students anymore and a VAST minority in some other fields such as veterinarian medicine.

These are among the many reasons that race/ethnicity-based AA has been slowly dying for the last fifteen years. Look at the decision in Grutter, then consider that even California has rejected race based AA in it's public universities.

The issues are complex, and AA offers an overly simplistic solution. One of the Ivies (can't remember which one) did a study a while back and found that although AA had increased ethnic diversity at the Ivies, it had not increased socio-economic diversity at all. In other words, the URM child of a heart surgeon benefits from AA while the white kid who grew up in a trailer in Appalachia gets told that he's privileged.

I think some form of AA should exist, but at this point it should based on socio-economic status.

That's true, but it is possible to quantify the effect of URM status vis a vis LSAT scores. The tough part is that it varies based on whether we're talking a 140, 150, or 160 as your base.

It always kind of bugs me how people who go "race is a social construct and we are all just humans and need to stop treating eacother different by race" still call people racist if they ask for that same thing to be applied to college admissions.

Don't get me wrong, if you can use a tool, use it. It just is interesting to me since White Males are NOT the majority of law students anymore and a VAST minority in some other fields such as veterinarian medicine.

These are among the many reasons that race/ethnicity-based AA has been slowly dying for the last fifteen years. Look at the decision in Grutter, then consider that even California has rejected race based AA in it's public universities.

The issues are complex, and AA offers an overly simplistic solution. One of the Ivies (can't remember which one) did a study a while back and found that although AA had increased ethnic diversity at the Ivies, it had not increased socio-economic diversity at all. In other words, the URM child of a heart surgeon benefits from AA while the white kid who grew up in a trailer in Appalachia gets told that he's privileged.

I think some form of AA should exist, but at this point it should based on socio-economic status.

Don't a lot of college nowdays have a "first to attend" type policy where if no one in your family went to college you get some type of admissions bump/tuition reduction or something like that?I think I heard something about them trying to get rid of "legacy" preferences too due to "incidental racism" since in the old days it was almost 100% white.

Yes, an applicant can write their essay about adverse circumstances or the fact that they are the first to go to college, etc. The admissions boost, however, is miniscule as compared to URM status. I think this has to do with the fact that URM enrollment is reported and used a rankings criterion, whereas socio-economic status is not.

Mind you, I'm not necessarily against AA. Certain groups are vastly underrepresented in the legal field. In my experience, however, the single most underrepresented group are the poor, regardless of race.

It will help and you can look at this website lawschoolnumbers.com to see how much it helps at various schools. With a 3.5 and 153 LSAT you could get into a number of ABA schools without URM status and the fact that you are a URM is just a boost, but there is no clear cut answer as to how much URM status helps.

I encourage you to apply to all law schools you are interested in and you should also consider attending an LSAC forum to get fee waivers and if you check in with schools at these forums it provides you with a slight boost in your application, because you went to their booth minimal, but a day can save you about $1,000 on law school applications and give you a slight boost. It will also allow you to talk to schools reps, which can give you a little insight into the school.